Critical Literature Pedagogy: teaching
canonical literature for critical literacy
Authors: Carlin Borsheim-Black, Michael Macaluso, &
Robert Petrone
This is a postprint of an article that originally appeared in Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy
on August 16, 2014. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy
Borsheim‐Black, Carlin, Michael Macaluso, and Robert Petrone. "Critical Literature Pedagogy."
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 58, no. 2 (2014): 123-133.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jaal.323
Made available through Montana State University’s ScholarWorks
scholarworks.montana.edu
Critical Literature Pedagogy: teaching
canonical literature for critical literacy
Carlin Borsheim-Black: English Language and Literature, Central Maichigan University, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, USA
Michael Macaluso: Curriculum, Intstruction, and Teacher Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA
Robert Petrone: English Education, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana, USA
This article introduces a Critical Literacy Pedagogy
(CLP), a pedagogical framework for merging goals
of critical literacy with canonical literature instruction.
For one reason or another, certain texts (e.g., The
Great Gatsby , To Kill a Mockingbird ) have become
staples of the secondary literacy classroom and constitute what we refer to as the “high school canon”.
Although this group of texts evolves over time and
some texts are not taught in certain contexts, this
corpus of literature prevails as dominant (Applebee,
1993 ; Stallworth & Gibbons, 2012 ). Oftentimes,
these canonical texts perpetuate ideologies that are also
dominant—about Whiteness, masculinity, heterosexuality, Christianity, and physical and mental ability,
for example. Furthermore, familiar approaches to
literature instruction, such as New Criticism and
Reader Response, typically leave these dominant ideologies unexamined and unquestioned, thereby
potentially perpetuating ideologies that privilege some
and marginalize others.
Critical literacy, by contrast, aims to draw attention
to implicit ideologies of texts and textual practices by
examining issues of power, normativity, and representation, as well as facilitating opportunities for equityoriented sociopolitical action (e.g., Comber & Simpson, 2001 ; Morrell, 2009 ; Luke, 2000 ). In addi-
Critical literacy, by contrast, aims to draw attention to implicit ideologies of texts and textual practices by examining issues of power, normativity, and
representation, as well as facilitating opportunities for
equity- oriented sociopolitical action (e.g., Comber &
Simpson,2001;Morrell,2009;Lukenaddi-tion to
equipping students with skills and strategies for
traditional textual analysis and production, a critical
literacy approach also teaches students to read and write
against texts: to identify and understand that
language and texts are not neutral and always ideological. Therefore, critical literacies consist not only
of academic literacies associated with reading and
writing texts for traditional purposes but also practices
associated with reading and writing tional curricula
in school and dominant popular culture, multimedia,
and other texts students encounter outside of school.
Critical literacy has roots in critical social theory
of the Frankfurt School (Habermas, 1975 ), which
might be described as a broad, interdisciplinary, neoMarxist approach to criticism and critique of society
with a commitment to social change. Critical social
theory posits that all knowledge is constructed and
ideological; therefore, questioning representation
and normativity is part of working toward social
transformation. This notion of critical social theory is
distinct from critical literary theories typically
associated with the study of literature, especially at
the university level, such as feminist theory, deconstructionism, or post- colonial theory, while these two
versions of “critical theory” grow out of different intellectual traditions, we see specific critical literary
theories overlapping with and contributing to the
broader notion of critical social theory undergirding
this project.
As such, critical literacy promotes textual engagement that emphasizes consuming (reading, listening,
viewing), producing (writing, speaking, designing),
and distributing texts for real- life purposes and audiences. As Luke ( 2000 ) explains, critical
literacy “focuses on teaching and learning how
texts work, understanding and re- mediating what texts
attempt to do in the world and to people, and moving
students toward active position- takings with texts to
critique and reconstruct the social fields in which
they live and work” (p. 453).
Many critical literacy educators have developed curricula to challenge students to critique
and rewrite dominant discourses, texts, and practices as they continue to develop traditional literacies (e.g., Janks, et al.,
2013 ; McLaughlin
and DeVoogd, 2004 ; Vasquez et al., 2013 ).
Morrell ( 2004 ) describes curricula that teach
traditional academic literacies related to the
research paper (e.g., developing research topics) as
students work to produce real texts to affect social
change. Others have used media texts to teach
traditional literacies (e.g., rhetorical analysis) in
addition to exploring how such texts perpetuate
and/or critique ideas of race, gender, and other
social categories (e.g., Beach, 2006 ; Marshall &
Sensoy, 2011 ). Simmons (2010), in addition to
the elements of fiction, teaches
The Hunger
Games by connecting it to contemporary social
issues like hunger and forced labor.
While these examples demonstrate exciting possibilities for critical literacy instruction, there is a
surprising lack of scholarship geared towards
the application of critical literacy to the teaching of
canonical literature specifically. Yet, we contend
that it is precisely because certain texts have become
canonized—upheld as having particular literary
merit or cultural value—that they offer the apposite
opportunity to engage students in critical literacy. A
critical literacy approach to canonical literature interrupts dominant ideologies that are so often taken
for granted, promoting inquiry rooted in questions
such as: What and whose stories do(n’ t) these canonized texts tell? What assumptions do these texts,
and by extension, secondary literature curricula,
make about dominant cultural values and ideologies? Questions like these can provide the basis
upon which canonical texts can be used to interrogate broader cultural assumptions, issues, and
practices.
While these and related questions formed the ba-sis
of our own instruction of canonical literature as
secondary literacy educators, we each struggled
teaching with the tensions bound in the pairing of
canonical literature and critical literacy because we
lacked a systematic approach for merging the two.
However, over time, we built on our initial attempts
through reflection on our own practice, scholarly inquiry, and research into the practice of other literacy
teachers (e.g., Borsheim- Black, 2012 ; Petrone
& Borsheim, 2008 ; Petrone & Bullard, 2012 ;
Macaluso, 2013 ). Based on this collective work, we
have devel-oped a pedagogical framework—what we
refer to as Critical Literature Pedagogy —to teach for
the goals of critical literacy within the context of
canonical literature.
Critical Literature Pedagogy
Critical Literature Pedagogy (CLP) weaves together two stances: reading with and against a
text. Reading with a text includes familiar
approaches of comprehending storylines, analyzing
literary de-vices, making personal connections,
understanding historical contexts, and developing
thematic inter-pretations. Typically, however,
literature instruc-tion stops at this stance, which,
while sufficient for most traditional standards and
assessments, does not call into question
ideologies of texts—those values or beliefs that
help to frame and form the text and our reading and
teaching of it. In addition to reading with a
canonical text, CLP asks students to read against it
to examine how it is embedded in and shaped by
ideologies.
Drawing on theoretical and pedagogical traditions of critical literacy, reading againstcanonical
literature challenges students to consider not only
what is written in the text but also what is not written that still accounts for the way the story works,
the characters function, and how readers come to
know and understand the world. Thus, reading
against canonical literature means reading between
the lines to expose and interrupt embedded, dominant narratives, power dynamics, and perceived
normalcy espoused by and hidden in the text, including its inclusion in school curricula. For example, reading against a text might include examining
the norms of the historical context in which it was
written or how the text has come to be canonized in
secondary curricula. Hence, reading against a text
is meant to help students question how and why
their own beliefs, values, and assumptions are
formed.
Thus, CLP brings with and against stances to the
following dimensions of literary study:
Canonicity
Contexts
Literary Elements
Reader
Assessments
While we have delineated distinct dimensions, it is
important to note that these categories overlap and
are constitutive with one another. For example, the
category “Canonicity”—which asks students to call
into question the ideologies of literacy curriculum by
interrogating how and why particular texts are perpetuated as canonical and others are not—will necessarily tie in with the category “Contexts,” which
recommends the use of counterstories for illuminat-ing
how canonical novels often perpetuate normative power
dynamics. We offer these dimensions as dis-crete
entities to provide accessible entry points, not as a
prescriptive guide that would constrain interpreta-tive
possibilities.
Moreover, although we contrast reading against
and with texts, we do not actually see these two ways
of reading as dichotomous. We understand reading
with texts as subsumed by reading againsttexts
whereby the relationship between these ways of reading text are reciprocal—learning to read withmightbe
seen as necessary to being able to read against
them. Also, in our own experiences, we have seen
that deep thinking and engagement related to reading
against texts for critical literacies lead to stronger
skills related to reading with texts for
academic literacies.
The chart below overviews these dimensions and
how they function across both with and
againststances. This chart, designed for use by both
teachers and students, is meant as an entry into these
ideas and not meant to be exhaustive.
To illustrate each dimension, we ground our
explanations in examples from John Steinbeck ’ s Of
Mice and Men , which prevails as one of the most
commonly taught texts in secondary literacy classrooms (Applebee, 1993 ; Stotsky, 2010).
Canonicity
As previously discussed, secondary literature curriculum continues to be dominated by a particular
group of texts. The cultural and literary value of
these texts—as well as their inclusion in literature
curricula—is often taken for granted. Reading witha
text related to canonicity assumes that students
should read a particular text precisely because it is
among the most frequently taught texts. From this
stance, students typically explore questions such as:
Which books are in “the canon”? Why might this
book be considered canonical? (See Table 1 .)
Reading
withSteinbeck’sOf Mice and Men
[OMAM] , for example, students might explore that it
is one of the most frequently taught titles, that
Steinbeck was awarded Pulitzer and Nobel
Prizes, and that two film versions of OMAMexist.
This with exploration of the text reinforces its place
in the canon, establishes a sense of the text ’ s inherent value, and perpetuates the ideology of
curriculum.
Readingagainst a text ’ s canonicity
challenges this taken- for- grantedness by asking
students to take the canon as an object of examination,
much like, for example, James Loewen (2007)
advocates history teachers teach students to
interrogate the ideologies of history textbooks. By
taking this approach, students engage in authentic
disciplinary questions, and the curriculum becomes
not a static entity to be under-stood, appreciated, or
simply regurgitated but rather an active process of
meaning making and “conversa-tion” (Applebee,
1996).
Questions such as the following can be used as
starting points for questioning canonicity (see also
Table 1):
TABLE 1 Questions to Guide Critical Literature Pedagogy
Dimension of
Literary Study
“With”
“Against”
Key Ideas from CLP
Canonicity
Consider the merit of the book.
• What is a/the canon?
• What titles are included in “the
canon”?
• What do literary critics say
about the value of this title/
author?
• What awards has this title and/
or author received?
• Why is it important we read this
book?
Challenge the text’s
prominence.
• What are unintended
consequences of a/the
canon? What does it reflect
about cultural values?
• What debates surround this
book?
• What factors contribute
to a text being considered
canonical? Who decides
what is canonical?
• What other texts written
within the same historical
context are not included in
the curriculum?
• Who benefits or gets
marginalized from the
inclusion of this novel?
• Should we read this book?
• No text is ideologically
neutral.
• Canonical novels—by
virtue of being canonical—
reinforce cultural values
that should be examined
and questioned.
• Literary canons have
historically privileged some
voices and marginalized
others.
• How we read books
matters just as much as
what books are taught.
Contexts
Identify the book’s contexts.
• What major historical
movements or events took
place when this book was
written/takes place?
• What are the familiar “stories”
of this historical period?
• How does the novel reflect
these familiar stories?
• How does the novel reflect the
author’s life experiences?
Identify counterstories from
the book’s contexts.
• How does this text
perpetuate and/or subvert
dominant understandings of
its historical context?
• What version of the historical
period does this book tell?
What are other versions?
• How would the story be
different if someone of a
different race, gender, or
ethnicity wrote it?
• Many canonical novels
reinforce dominant
narratives of history.
• Some canonical novels
interrupt dominant
narratives.
• Literary canons have
typically privileged
White and male voices;
counterstories can make
dominant ideologies
visible.
Literary Elements
Identify literary elements.
• What are the major plot points
of the story?
• What are the major symbols of
this book?
• Major themes?
• How are the characters
developed?
• How do the literary elements
contribute to the theme or
universality of the text?
Consider embedded values or
ideologies the text reproduces.
• Are characters from
historically marginalized
populations complex or
stereotypical?
• Whose story is emphasized
or valorized? Portrayed as a
victim or hero?
• How do the plot and
themes support or
challenge normative ways of
thinking about topics being
portrayed (e.g., American
Dream)? How do these
themes support certain
belief systems, or ideas of
“normal” or universal?
• How do the symbols
reflect particular cultural
knowledge? What would
someone need to know
in order to understand the
symbols used?
• Canonical novels often
represent individuals from
marginalized populations
as flat or “token.”
• Characters from
marginalized populations
often play a secondary
role in the plot of a novel,
in support of a culturally
dominant main character
and hero.
• Themes of canonical
novels often reinforce
dominant ideologies
about topics like class,
achievement, sexual
orientation, etc.
TABLE 1 Continued
Dimension of
Literary Study
“With”
“Against”
Key Ideas from CLP
Reader
Connect text to personal
experiences.
• How do I relate to characters or
themes on a personal level?
• How does my (lack of)
connection shape my reading of
this novel?
Consider perspectives other
than your own or consider your
own perspectives in a new way
to examine power and privilege.
• How does my identity (e.g.,
ability, sexual orientation,
age, religion) shape my
reading?
• Do I relate more with
characters in power or with
marginalized characters?
How might this positionality
shape my reading of the
text?
• Just “relating” can
undermine attempts to
engage students with
power and difference.
• Readers from culturally
dominant backgrounds
often struggle to identify
and question dominant
ideologies because they
often remain invisible to
individuals in privileged
positions.
Assessments
Standard literary analyses.
• What analyses or literary
criticism have been written
about this book? How might I
write about my interpretation of
the text in relation to them?
• How might I write a Reader
Response, New Critical, or New
Historical interpretation of this
novel?
Opportunities to create and
distribute texts that critique
normativity for real audiences.\
• How can the ideas and
information developed in
reading with and against
canonical texts be used to
inform, persuade others
about oppression and
injustice, particularly in my
local contexts (e.g., school)?
• How can I affect change
based upon my critical
learning?
• Connect critical
understandings of issues
in canonical novels to
similar issues relevant to
other contexts.
• Transfer the critical
literacies used to analyze
canonical novels to analyze
other texts (e.g., popular
culture, media).
• What factors contribute to a text being con-sidered
“canonical”?
Who
decides
what
is
canonical?
• How did this particular book become a canonical title in school curriculum?
• What other books might replace or augment this
book? Who benefits or gets marginalized from
the inclusion of this novel?
These questions are designed to demystify the
canon, highlighting that what is in/excluded from
the canon ought to be the subject of continuous
debate. Thus, reading against canonicity emphasizes that decisions about literature selection are
not politically neutral; they are made based on
myriad factors, including curricular goals, personal
tastes, available resources, and tradition.
Considering canonicity from this stance reveals
that no text is “sacred.”
CLP encourages students to consider not only
what literature is selected, but also what literature is
not selected. That which is left out—as much as that
which is left in—teaches lessons about which stories
matter and what “quality” literature looks like. As students question canonicity, they might examine what
other works are(n ’ t) required in their school ’ s curriculum, asking: Whose stories are most often told and
whose are not? Students might also be asked to
research what other texts from similar timeframes or
cultural groups are unknown within their curriculum. Similarly, students can examine which texts by
particular authors are canonized while others by the
same authors go untaught.
Readingagainst the canonicity of OMAM,teach-ers
might ask why this novel was selected as opposed to
others. Why not read Steinbeck ’ s other novels,
especially considering many of them offer far- more
scathing critiques? Or, why OMAM and not Michael
Gold ’sJews Without Money or Richard Wright s’
Uncle Tom’s Children, both of which were published
in the same historical context and address similar issues? This line of questioning might cultivate conversations around OMAM’s placement on the American
Library Association’s list of most frequently banned
titles, in addition to being one of the most frequently
taught novels. How is this paradox possible? Reading
against OMAM’s canonicity engages students in denaturalizing and calling into question the very curriculum they are being asked to study.
Contexts
Common approaches to teaching literature take
into consideration historical and biographical contexts. Reading with a text in this dimension often
entails asking questions such as: How does the
novel reflect what was happening during the time
the book is set or written? How does the novel reflect the author’s life experiences? (See also
Table 1.) A typical reading with OMAM in this dimension includes considering the historical context in terms of the Great Depression. Teachers
sometimes invite students to read an informational
article or do online research on the Great
Depression and Steinbeck’s life and may connect
Steinbeck’s experiences spending time in migrant
camps with his focus on migrant workers.
Reading against contexts means considering
what else might have been happening at the time in
which the novel was written or takes place. It might
also mean looking at how the text speaks with or
against dominant values of the time. Both of these
notions press against what might be taken as normal
from the text’s contexts. Some questions that work towards this goal include (see also Table 1):
• To what extent does the author contribute to
counterculture movements or reinforce dominant ideologies of the time?
• How might the author’s own background encourage particular interpretations of the text?
How would the story be different if someone of
a different background wrote it?
“Literacy educators might consider
how OMAM—and the secondary
literature canon—contributes to
heteronormativity.”
To answer these questions, students need to explore
not only dominant understandings of these historical
contexts but also alternative, non-dominant histories,
as represented, for example, by historians like Howard
Zinn (1980). In some ways, this work of considering
various historical contexts echoes the against approach toward canonicity, where students interrogate
the recognition of texts.
Helping students detect dominant ideologies
can be difficult because they are written into the
very fabric of our society. One way of making dominant perspectives more visible is by juxtaposing
them with contrasting perspectives, or “counterstories,” which foreground voices of people from nondominant positions to challenge normative
ideologies by telling a different side of the story
(Delgado & Stefancic, 2001). To locate counterstories, teachers might include texts written by writers,
musicians, activists, artists, or politicians who were
active at that time and who represent historically
marginalized perspectives.
To read against contexts in a unit on OMAM,
students might consider African American perspectives on the Great Depression. For example, Langston
Hughes’ poem, “Let America Be America to Me,”
provides a critique of the American Dream from an
African American man’s perspective. Published in
1935, the poem, like OMAM, comments on social
class and the myth of the American Dream; however,
it opens up opportunities to consider race and power
in ways OMAM does not. Of course, Langston
Hughes does not represent “the” perspective of people of color; literacy educators might also include
other texts about the experiences of African Americans
during the Depression era, as well as integrate
Mexican American, Native American, or Asian
American voices. Similarly, to offer counterstories to
the dominant male perspective, students could read
works by or about women of the era, such as Jane
Addams, Marian Anderson, Eleanor Roosevelt, Zora
Neale Hurston, Mary McLeod Bethune, or Dorothea
Lange.
Literacy educators could take the reading of
OMAM as an opportunity to consider how the text
constructs dominant views about sexual orientation.
Literacy educators might consider how OMAM—
and the secondary literature canon—contributes to
heteronormativity, the assumption that straight people are “normal” or superior to people who identify as
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning (LGBTQ) (cf. Blackburn & Smith, 2010).
They might also think about ways to incorporate
counterstories of the Great Depression that represent
perspectives of individuals who identified as LGBTQ.
To do so would emphasize the typical silencing of
LGBTQ voices during this era and consider how the
omission of LGBTQ voices in the high school literary
canon, including OMAM, contribute to the notion of
heteronormativity.
Examining counterstories illuminates the fact
that OMAM, written by a White, straight, middleclass, English-speaking, able-bodied male author tells
one version of the story of the Great Depression.
Using counterstories to read against contexts, then,
CLP asks students to go beyond exploring how texts
merely reflect historical contexts; instead, it asks students to interrogate how a particular text contributes
to the construction of dominant ideologies by marginalizing non-dominant perspectives.
Literary Elements
Traditional approaches to literary analysis are often
informed by New Criticism, which values a close
reading with attention to literary devices including
character, plot, symbol, and theme. We equate this
approach to reading with a canonical text; in fact, we
may go so far as describing it as a canonical reading
of a canonical text—exemplified by any SparkNotes
guide to any canonical novel. From this perspective,
a typical character analysis of OMAM would identify George as the protagonist and explore how the
novel’s conflicts affect his development over the
course of the novel. An analysis of theme would
likely include an exploration of friendship and/or
the American Dream, and, in terms of symbolism,
an analysis might include examining how the death
of Candy’s dog mirrors themes of life on the ranch
and foreshadows subsequent events. (See also
Table 1.)
CLP values reading with literary elements in
these ways; however, CLP also emphasizes reading
against them to explore how the text sends messages
about how the world works. Consider these questions
when reading against literary elements (see also
Table 1):
• Character: Are characters from historically marginalized populations rich and complex or flat
and stereotypical? Whose story is emphasized
or valorized? Portrayed as a victim or hero?
• Plot and Theme: How do the plot and themes
support or challenge normative ways of thinking
about topics being portrayed (e.g., American
Dream)? What role have the themes of this text
played in supporting a certain belief system or
what might be considered “normal”?
• Symbolism: How do symbols reflect particular
cultural knowledge? What would someone
need to know in order to best understand the
various symbols used throughout the text?
These questions encourage students to complicate
seemingly natural messages the text conveys by calling into question the very aspects of literary analysis
we so often take for granted.
OMAM provides rich opportunities for reading
against the text in terms of characters. Feminist readings of the novel highlight Steinbeck’s negative portrayal of female characters, including Curley’s wife.
Additionally, we see opportunities for students to consider the perspective of Crooks, the sole African
American character in the novel. Although it can be
argued that Steinbeck’s portrayal of Crooks is sympathetic and critiques racial segregation at the time, students might consider the authenticity of Steinbeck’s
portrayal. Is Crooks’ character full, round, and dynamic, or is he a token, a stereotype? What would the
story be if told from his perspective? These questions
could help make students more aware of how canonical novels often marginalize African American characters (cf. Morrison, 1992).
And what about Lennie as a character with a cognitive impairment? Or Candy as a character with a
physical disability? Students might consider the figurative language Steinbeck uses to describe characters
with disabilities. Do loaded words convey negative
messages about disabilities? What role do these characters play in the plot of the novel—are they dependent, the subject of others’ pity, always “the problem”?
(Myers & Bersani, 2008/2009). Students might also
consider Steinbeck’s representation of disabilities and
whether those representations are realistic and/or respectful, as well as how Steinbeck’s representation of
cognitive and physical impairments constructs attitudes about people with disabilities or about ableism
more generally.
Regarding theme, students could explore the ideologies inherent in the very idea of the American
Dream. What function does having such a national
“dream” serve? How does it assign responsibility for
success and failure in U.S. culture? In other words,
rather than simply having students identify and connect with how their own “American Dream” aligns
with George and Lennie’s, analysis encourages them
to explore the very idea and consequences of the
“American Dream.” In this scenario, students might
consider where their ideas about success and the
American Dream come from and how the idea of
“American Dream” is constructed. In these ways, students are asked to use their exploration of the novel’s
themes as a way to better understand how texts reinforce and/or subvert ideologies.
Reader
Reader Response approaches acknowledge that a
text does not have objective, inherent meaning, but
that meaning is negotiated in a reader’s transaction
with the text. One of the hallmarks of Reader
Response approaches involves students making
personal connections to the novel. In reading with
of OMAM, students are often asked to connect
with themes of the American Dream or friendship
through prompts like, “Describe a friendship that
has been important to you,” or “What’s a ‘dream’
you have for your future?” Finding connections
helps students access prior knowledge and gain entry into a text.
Though helpful in many ways, these connections often do not stretch students beyond what is familiar or ask them to examine ideologies of texts. In
fact, in some cases, depending on students’ identities, stretching too far to make these personal connections may actually undermine efforts to engage
students critically with ideas of power and difference.
For example, Appleman (2000) illustrates limitations
of a Reader Response approach with an example of a
student responding to Toni Morrison’s Beloved by
saying, “I felt alienated by how their family interacted. I had no basis on which to relate or empathize” (p. 45). Perhaps instead of considering how he
did or did not relate to Beloved, this reader could
have more productively considered what the novel
had to teach him about a perspective other than his
own, or perhaps emphasizing how he did not relate
to this slave could help him reflect on his own life
differently. In other words, relying too heavily on
Reader Response can overemphasize the importance
“Being ‘critical’ means...also
acknowledging how one is
privileged.”
of “relating” to a book at the expense of examining
power and difference.
Therefore, in addition to helping students read
with a text by making personal connections when
fitting, CLP also encourages students to look for
opportunities, when appropriate, to read against
their own personal connections, to consider how
aspects of their own identities—especially their
own positions of power and privilege—factor into
their experiences with a novel. Some questions in
this dimension include (see also Table 1):
• How does my identity in terms of race, class,
gender, ability, sexual orientation, ethnicity,
age, language, or religion shape my reading of
this text?
• How do(n’t) I relate with characters in power
or with marginalized characters in this novel?
How might this positionality shape my reading
of the text?
Of course, the teaching context—including the student body, school, and community—will factor into
teachers’ considerations of these questions and issues. If reading OMAM in a middle-to-upper class
teaching context, for example, students might be
asked to consider how their social class positions factor into their reading of Steinbeck’s novel. How is
their own experience quite different from that of
George and Lennie? What does Steinbeck’s commentary on the American Dream have to teach
them about their own (and others’) social class position, ideas of meritocracy? What might focusing on
the ways they cannot relate to George and Lennie
have to teach them about their own power and
privilege?
Critical literacy often looks for ways to empower students to overcome oppression. When appropriate, teachers could merge a critical literacy
approach together with Reader Response to consider, for example, “How are my students reflected
in the canonical text we are reading? Do my students experience similar kinds of oppression as that
explored in the novel? How does this text help
them to understand and/or overcome oppression
they face in their daily lives?” At the same time,
however, being “critical” means not only learning
how one is oppressed but also acknowledging how
one is privileged. Overall, questions in this dimension are designed to encourage students to consider
perspectives other than their own—and to consider
their own perspectives in critical ways. This approach, then, has the potential to make students
more aware of power and privilege generally, and
the ways they do and do not experience them in
their own lives.
Assessments
Studying canonical literature often results in a summative assessment in which students write literary
analysis papers. These types of assessments reflect
reading with canonical literature to the extent that
they contribute to the normalcy and neutrality of canonical literature curriculum and standards. Students
might be asked, for example, to focus their interpretive papers on characterization, symbolism, or thematic analyses. For instance, for OMAM, typical
assessments include analytical essays examining the
idea of setting or discussing the significance of the
book’s title and recurring images and symbols. In
some instances, students are asked to argue whether
George should be prosecuted for killing Lennie.
An against stance toward literature assessment
encourages teachers to design assignments that position students as agents of change by setting up opportunities for them to transfer their critical reading of a
canonical text to some type of social action. In this
way, CLP asks students to engage literary texts for
both academic and “real-life” purposes—emphasizing the value their analyses have beyond the classroom. The following questions can be used as first
steps in shifting the overarching purpose and assessments for studying canonical literature (see also
Table 1):
• How can the ideas developed in reading with
and against canonical texts be used to inform,
persuade, or incite others about oppression and
injustice (or whatever particular issues arose
within the text studied)?
• How might interpretations of canonical texts be
used to understand, draw attention to, and interrupt dominant and problematic perspectives
in local and contemporary contexts, including
the school and community?
These and similarly oriented questions provide a
broader exigency for studying literature and help answer the age-old question, “Why do we have to do
this?” Pushing students to see why and how canonical
literature can mean for contemporary, local, and
global worlds they live in helps provide students with
purpose for the work we ask them to do in literacy
classrooms.
Thus, these questions encourage students to become critical protégés by producing texts for real
audiences and purposes in their own contexts.
This dimension of CLP engages students in writing
brochures, websites, editorials, public service announcements, research reports, speeches, and other
authentic texts to be distributed for sociopolitical critique and transformation. Related to the first dimension discussed (“Canonicity”), for instance, students
might, based on their research, propose an alternative
reading list for the school’s literacy curriculum to the
English Department, administration, or school board.
A CLP “assessment” for OMAM might ask students to package what they learned during their reading of the novel and transfer that to their critique of
the construction of men, women, ability, class, heteronormativity, or the American Dream in their schools
or local communities through their creation and distribution of a range of texts. For example, when
Borsheim-Black taught OMAM, she used the novel as
an opportunity to teach students to apply different
“lenses” (Appleman, 2000) not only to representations
of marginalized populations within the novel, but also
to the study of a wide range of contemporary texts,
such as Disney films, songs, and children’s toys
(Petrone & Borsheim, 2008). From their analysis of
OMAM, then, students were asked to transfer their
analytical tools to media and cultural texts—including those that existed within their schools and communities. How, for example, was race represented
within school curricula? How was gender constructed
within the school through sports? In terms of social
action, the students were asked to write up these analyses for real purposes and audiences. In these ways,
OMAM provided a way for students to re-read and
re-write their actual worlds—including the very walls
of their schools—from a critical perspective. In general, teachers and students could collaborate to design
assignments by asking questions like, “How does the
novel contribute to my understanding of what is considered normal or expected of me?” Or, “After a critical consideration of the themes in OMAM, what do I
want others to know?”
Final Considerations
We lay out several dimensions of the CLP framework
to offer a systematic approach for merging critical literacies and canonical literature. This is not to say that
teachers should feel obligated to include every dimension every time or to address them as linear. It is
our intention that teachers utilize dimensions that
seem most pertinent to particular teaching contexts
and texts. While CLP is an approach for the teacher,
it is also, ideally, a framework for students to apply the
stances of reading both with and against texts. As students become more independent, we could envision
offering students Table 1—or adaptations of it—as a
handout and letting them guide their own critical
reading of texts.
As we have found in our own teaching of canonical literature for critical literacy, reading against canonical texts can sometimes leave students feeling
unsettled as they begin to question ideas they have
always held to be true, fixed, or normal. Indeed, CLP
is designed to create this dissonance. As a result,
students sometimes demonstrate resistance to the
critical process. This resistance, however, can be a
sign of learning and engagement with critical perspectives (Petrone & Bullard, 2012). We encourage
Take Action
STEPS FOR IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION
1. Gauge students’ criticality through a diagnostic assessment or anticipation guide, participate in a preliminary discussion, or read a
short text that begins to explore relevant
themes or questions connected to a critical
framework.
2. Model reading a short text or picture book where
you “think aloud” around some of the questions
(and your initial responses) posed on the CLP
chart.
3. Brainstorm texts that students have studied in
previous literacy classes, asking: What stories
might these texts collectively tell? What perspectives have been privileged/marginalized?
4. Introduce the CLP chart and assumptions that
undergird its questions. Practice exploring
questions by breaking students into groups to
tackle different dimensions around some
common text (e.g., Disney movie, social media
website, short documentary).
5. Move forward with group study of a certain text,
focusing at first on a couple dimensions but
leaving room for student input around all
dimensions detailed on the chart.
teachers to take advantage of these growing pains as
pedagogical opportunities by asking themselves and
their students: Why might I be feeling resistance, anger, sadness, or disillusionment during or after critically reading this text?
Finally, our consideration of canonical literature
is not an endorsement for the maintenance of traditional literature curriculum. We continue to advocate that curriculum be revised to include texts by a
more diverse representation of authors. However, we
also endorse reading against canonical novels to
make visible dominant ideologies, narratives, and assumptions that are embedded in the literature curriculum. We recognize the power canonical novels
hold to reaffirm cultural capital. Because of this
power—and precisely because these texts are such
pillars of secondary classrooms—they need to be subjected to a critical eye. By reading against canonical
literature, students might begin to see “canonical”
messages around them and become more aware of
the influence these messages could—as opposed to
would or should—have on them.
References
Applebee, A.N. (1993). Literature in the secondary school: Studies
of curriculum and instruction in the United States. Urbana, IL :
NCTE.
Applebee, A.N. (1996). Curriculum as conversation: Transforming
traditions of teaching and learning. Chicago, IL : University of
Chicago Press.
Appleman , D. (2009 ). Critical encounters with high school
English: Teaching literary theory to adolescents (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Beach, R. (2006). Teachingmedialiteracy.com: A web-linked guide
to resources and activities. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Blackburn, M., & Smith, J.M. (2010). Moving beyond the inclusion of LGBTQ-themed literature in English language arts
classrooms: Interrogating heteronormativity and exploring
intersectionality. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
53(8), 625– 634.
Borsheim-Black, C. (2012). Not as multicultural as I’ d like: White
English teachers’ uses of literature for multicultural education
in predominantly White contexts. (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
Comber, B., & Simpson, A. (2001). (Eds.) Negotiating critical literacies in classrooms. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Habermas , J. (1975). Legitimation crisis. London, England :
Beacon Press.
Janks, H., Dixon, K., Ferreira, A., Granville, S., & Newfield, D.
(2013). Doing critical literacy: Texts and activities for students
and teachers. London, England: Routledge.
Luke, A. (2000). Critical literacy in Australia: A matter of context
and standpoint. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43(5),
448 – 461.
Macaluso, M. (2013, April). Canonical conundrum: Exploring
canonization with secondary English teachers. Paper presented
at AERA Convention, San Francisco, CA.
Marshall, E., & Özlem, S. (2011). Rethinking popular culture and
media. Milwaukee, WI : Rethinking Schools.
McLaughlin, M., & DeVoogd, G.L. (2004). Critical literacy:
Enhancing students’ comprehension of text. New York, NY:
Scholastic.
Morrell, E. (2009). Critical research and the future of literacy
education. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53 (2),
96 –104.
Morrell, E. (2004). Becoming critical researchers: Literacy and
empowerment for urban youth. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Morrison , T. (1992). Playing in the dark: Whiteness and the
literary imagination. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University
Press.
Myers, C., & Bersani, H. (2008/2009). Ten quick ways to analyze children’s books for ableism. Rethinking Schools, 23 (2),
1–5.
Petrone, R., & Borsheim, C. (2008). “It just seems to be more intelligent”: Critical literacy in high school English. In (Ed.)
L. Wallowitz. Critical literacy as resistance: Teaching for social
justice across the secondary curriculum. New York, NY: Peter
Lang.
Petrone, R., & Bullard, L. (2012). Reluctantly recognizing resistance: An analysis of representations of critical literacy.
English Journal, 102 (2), 122–128.
Simmons, A.M. (2012). Class on fire: Using The Hunger Games
trilogy to encourage social action. Journal of Adolescent &
Adult Literacy, 56 (1), 22–34.
Stallworth, J.B., & Gibbons, L. (2012). What ’s on the list … now?
A survey of book-length works taught in secondary schools.
English Leadership Quarterly, 34 (3), 2–3.
Stotsky, S. (2010 ). Literary study in grades 9, 10, 11: A national
sur vey. Association of Literary Scholars, Critics, and
Writers.
Vasquez, V.M., Stacie, L., Tate, S.L., & Harste, J.C. (Eds.) (2013).
Negotiating critical literacies with teachers: Theoretical foundations and pedagogical resources for pre-service and in-service
contexts. London, England: Routledge.
Zinn, H. (1999). A people’s history of the United States: 1492present. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
More to Explore
CONNECTED CONTENT-BASED RESOURCES
✓ Berhman, E. H. ( 2006 ). Teaching about language,
power, and text: A review of classroom practices that
support critical literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 49 ( 6 ), 490 – 498.
✓ Morrell, E. ( 2007). Critical literacy and urban youth:
Pedagogies of access, dissent, and liberation. London,
England : Routledge.
✓ Murray, M., & Collins, G. ( 2011, November 18).
Exploring diversity through children’s literature:
Supporting students in becoming critically literate.
Retrieved April 12, 2014 from http://quest-criticalliteracy.wikispaces.com/
✓ Pandya, J., & Avila, J. (Eds.) ( 2013 ). Moving critical
literacies forward. London, England : Routledge.
✓ Stevens, L.P., & Bean, T.W. ( 2007). Critical literacy:
Context, research, and practice in the K-12 classroom.
Thousand Oakes, CA : Sage.